PDA

View Full Version : Downey Article from Sunday: What if SOX kept Colon, Gordon, Foulke?


Hangar18
10-12-2004, 10:20 AM
even though it was just a sentence in his article ....
I thought God Darnit! Why arent the Chicago Media Asking this question
also? Why isnt Jerry Reinsdorfs foolish fiscal policies being exposed?
Why are the Chicago Media writing fluffy articles BEGGING for Bruce Kimm
to be fired (which just happened) and for BELTRAN and others to be cubs?
WHY?

Gordon alone wouldve had us in the playoffs. Having Big Bart wouldve
solidified our #5 spot by not having a bunch of rookies stink up the spot
to the tune of 9 losses (and probably more)

SEALgep
10-12-2004, 10:27 AM
Who wouldn't be here if those guys were here though? If you're simply adding them to the current team, then of course we would be very much improved. What team wouldn't though?

Ol' No. 2
10-12-2004, 10:30 AM
even though it was just a sentence in his article ....
I thought God Darnit! Why arent the Chicago Media Asking this question
also? Why isnt Jerry Reinsdorfs foolish fiscal policies being exposed?
Why are the Chicago Media writing fluffy articles BEGGING for Bruce Kimm
to be fired (which just happened) and for BELTRAN and others to be cubs?
WHY?

Gordon alone wouldve had us in the playoffs. Having Big Bart wouldve
solidified our #5 spot by not having a bunch of rookies stink up the spot
to the tune of 9 losses (and probably more)Freddy Garcia ($9M) + Jose Contreras ($6M) = Bartolo Colon ($14) + $1M

Freddy Garcia (13 W) + Jose Contreras (13 W) >> Bartolo Colon (18 W)

Which would you rather have?

Hangar18
10-12-2004, 10:54 AM
Freddy Garcia ($9M) + Jose Contreras ($6M) = Bartolo Colon ($14) + $1M

Freddy Garcia (13 W) + Jose Contreras (13 W) >> Bartolo Colon (18 W)

Which would you rather have?
good point. but didnt Freddy only get 8 of those wins with US? and Jose
only get 4 of those wins with us? 11 wins is what it looks like to me
Versus 18 Bartolo wins.
Im thinking theres a 10 game swing there ......... Plus Flash Gordon leading in
HOLDS, there goes another 8-9 games. If I do my math correctly,
the SOX win the division by 7-8 games, instead of losing it by 9.

:reinsy
"yes, but Hangar, your not Looking at the Big Picture here.
Look at the MONEY WE SAVED BY CUTTING PAYROLL!!!"

SEALgep
10-12-2004, 10:58 AM
good point. but didnt Freddy only get 8 of those wins with US? and Jose
only get 4 of those wins with us? 11 wins is what it looks like to me
Versus 18 Bartolo wins.
Im thinking theres a 10 game swing there ......... Plus Flash Gordon leading in
HOLDS, there goes another 8-9 games. If I do my math correctly,
the SOX win the division by 7-8 games, instead of losing it by 9.

:reinsy
"yes, but Hangar, your not Looking at the Big Picture here.
Look at the MONEY WE SAVED BY CUTTING PAYROLL!!!"Colon had a pretty rough start, but also had plenty of consistent run support. The Sox didn't provide that this season, so it's difficult to make an absolute comparison.

Rocky Soprano
10-12-2004, 11:00 AM
Next Year we will have Freddy and Jose all year. I am sure that they combined will have more wins than Bartolo.

The Sox tried to keep Gordon, but the Yankees threw a ton of money at him. Money that NO OTHER TEAM would of offered. What can you do?

I hate Reindsdorf as much as the next guy but not everything is his fault. If you want to blame someone blame MLB for not having a salary cap like the NFL. Then we wouldnt have many of the problems we see today.

batmanZoSo
10-12-2004, 11:05 AM
good point. but didnt Freddy only get 8 of those wins with US? and Jose
only get 4 of those wins with us? 11 wins is what it looks like to me
Versus 18 Bartolo wins.
Im thinking theres a 10 game swing there ......... Plus Flash Gordon leading in
HOLDS, there goes another 8-9 games. If I do my math correctly,
the SOX win the division by 7-8 games, instead of losing it by 9.

:reinsy
"yes, but Hangar, your not Looking at the Big Picture here.
Look at the MONEY WE SAVED BY CUTTING PAYROLL!!!"

Yeah, but I trust both of them in the long run over Colon. Especially when you consider salary, Contreras is a lot cheaper and is at least as good as an "enigmatic" Colon. Garcia's already better and cheaper than Colon...I'll take what we have.

Foulke was a total ***** when he left us. Just like Crede, Wells and Garland are/were. I don't think he'd have ever regained himself in a Sox uniform. Gordon would've helped, but he wanted 5 million for 12/17 saves and an oft injured arm. There are many cheaper options out there we could've picked up that were just as good and safer than Gordon, but we didn't even get that. That's what makes me mad. I agree with letting Colon and Gordon go, but they just don't replace them...and that's crap.

SEALgep
10-12-2004, 11:06 AM
Next Year we will have Freddy and Jose all year. I am sure that they combined will have more wins than Bartolo.

The Sox tried to keep Gordon, but the Yankees threw a ton of money at him. Money that NO OTHER TEAM would of offered. What can you do?

I hate Reindsdorf as much as the next guy but not everything is his fault. If you want to blame someone blame MLB for not having a salary cap like the NFL. Then we wouldnt have many of the problems we see today.Plus with Gordon, I remember something about him wanting closer money, along with the closer role. Both things the Sox weren't willing to offer.

Ol' No. 2
10-12-2004, 11:07 AM
Next Year we will have Freddy and Jose all year. I am sure that they combined will have more wins than Bartolo.

The Sox tried to keep Gordon, but the Yankees threw a ton of money at him. Money that NO OTHER TEAM would of offered. What can you do?

I hate Reindsdorf as much as the next guy but not everything is his fault. If you want to blame someone blame MLB for not having a salary cap like the NFL. Then we wouldnt have many of the problems we see today.Gordon also said he did not want to be the setup man for Billy Koch. So he goes to NY to be the setup man for Mariano Rivera. Go figure.

Also, what I posted before is not quite accurate. I compared two pitchers to one. You still need another starter.

Garcia + Contreras >>>>> Colon + Diaz

kittle42
10-12-2004, 11:13 AM
Gordon also said he did not want to be the setup man for Billy Koch. So he goes to NY to be the setup man for Mariano Rivera. Go figure.

The latter is a bit more respectable. :smile:

jabrch
10-12-2004, 11:13 AM
Wendell Kim, not Bruce Kimm - and who cares?


We made reasonably good offers to both Colon and Gordon - although you will, it is not fair to blame JR and KW, as they were outbid by the two biggest spenders in the game this last off season.

Oh - and from the surprise-of-the-day, we have someone griping about us moving Keith Foulke - who was terrible with us, so terrible that he got demoted and was not going to stay under any circumstance.

That said - you can never have too much JR/KW bashing - so why stop now?

TDog
10-12-2004, 11:20 AM
What if Bill Veeck would have kept Norm Cash and Johnny Callison instead of trying to build a winner of his own from the league-championship team he had purchased? What if the 1972 White Sox, which had the third-best record in the majors, had Looie Aparicio and Ken Berry to make up for their lack of defense at short and in center?

Irishsox1
10-12-2004, 11:45 AM
The last I heard out of Foulke was that he wanted to be a starter with the Sox, then he was traded. He needed to get out of Chicago, the guy couldn't covert a save.

Tom Gordon was a scrap heap sigining two years ago. I was amazed that he made it through last year without his arm falling off. I am also surprised that his arm hasn't fallen off with the Yankees. Yes, he would have been helpful this year, but the Yankees overpaid for him...at the time.

Bartolo wanted the big money, Anaheim gave it to him. The Sox were never really in the race for his services once Anaheim came in with there offer. Bartolo can be dominant, but he had a knack for folding in big games with the Sox.

Throwing Josh Fogg in with Kip Wells is the only trade thats pissed me off in the last 5 years. Kip for Richie is a fair trade, but to throw in Fogg still upsets me. I know Fogg isn't awesome, but the Sox got totally ripped off on that deal.

gosox41
10-12-2004, 12:11 PM
Oh - and from the surprise-of-the-day, we have someone griping about us moving Keith Foulke - who was terrible with us, so terrible that he got demoted and was not going to stay under any circumstance.

That said - you can never have too much JR/KW bashing - so why stop now?
Do you really want to open up this can of worms? How was Foulke terrible for the Sox? Next, was he better or worse then Koch was for the Sox?


Bob

steff
10-12-2004, 12:13 PM
even though it was just a sentence in his article ....
I thought God Darnit! Why arent the Chicago Media Asking this question
also? Why isnt Jerry Reinsdorfs foolish fiscal policies being exposed?
Why are the Chicago Media writing fluffy articles BEGGING for Bruce Kimm
to be fired (which just happened) and for BELTRAN and others to be cubs?
WHY?

Gordon alone wouldve had us in the playoffs. Having Big Bart wouldve
solidified our #5 spot by not having a bunch of rookies stink up the spot
to the tune of 9 losses (and probably more)

And if my aunt had you know what's.. she'd be my uncle. What's your point Henry...? Ohhh.. I know what it is.. it's another opportunity to slam the Sox brass. :whiner: :whiner:

Brian26
10-12-2004, 12:16 PM
Gordon alone wouldve had us in the playoffs

Whatever medicine you're taking, please pass it over here. It sounds like it's good stuff.

Brian26
10-12-2004, 12:19 PM
The Sox tried to keep Gordon, but the Yankees threw a ton of money at him. Money that NO OTHER TEAM would of offered. What can you do?

Injury-prone Gordon was way too much of a risk to throw that much money at. The Yankees have the expendable income and could take the chance. If it was MY money, I would have made the same decision JR made.

It's nice to spend money freely, but it's better to spend it wisely. The Yankees lucked out with Gordon.

Rocky Soprano
10-12-2004, 12:41 PM
And if my aunt had you know what's.. she'd be my uncle. What's your point Henry...? Ohhh.. I know what it is.. it's another opportunity to slam the Sox brass. :whiner: :whiner:
ROFLMAO! :roflmao: :rolling:

Foulke29
10-12-2004, 04:43 PM
Foulke was a total ***** when he left us. Just like Crede, Wells and Garland are/were. I don't think he'd have ever regained himself in a Sox uniform. Gordon would've helped, but he wanted 5 million for 12/17 saves and an oft injured arm. There are many cheaper options out there we could've picked up that were just as good and safer than Gordon, but we didn't even get that.
I like your name, but you no talkie about Foulke any longer.

Manuel mismanaged Foulke his last year with the Sox. Foulke had three or four bad games and was demoted to mop-up and eventually regained a set-up role. However, if you look at his number that year, he had a great WHIP and an excellent K/BB ratio. No sir. Saying he was a total set of astericks is just to be misinformed son.

Rocky Soprano
10-12-2004, 04:45 PM
I miss Foulke! :whiner:

idseer
10-12-2004, 04:54 PM
good point. but didnt Freddy only get 8 of those wins with US? and Jose
only get 4 of those wins with us? 11 wins is what it looks like to me
Versus 18 Bartolo wins.


8 and 4 is 11? :?:

:wink:

santo=dorf
10-12-2004, 05:04 PM
good point. but didnt Freddy only get 8 of those wins with US? and Jose
only get 4 of those wins with us? 11 wins is what it looks like to me
Versus 18 Bartolo wins.
Freddy had 9 victories with the Sox and got a ND when Shingo blew his only save of the season.
Contreras had 5 wins and a ND when Damaso gave up a homer in the ninth the NEXT day.:angry: :angry:

So 16 possible win versus 18. BFD Let's see how many games Fatolo would've won with the second half of 2004 White Sox's offense.
Now go :whiner: about how Foulke and Gordon would've prevented those blown saves.

Ol' No. 2
10-12-2004, 05:11 PM
8 and 4 is 11? :?:

:wink:Garcia was 9-4 with the Sox in 16 starts. Assuming 34 starts, that projects to 19-9. I'll take that anytime.

Contreras was 5-4 in 13 starts with the Sox. Assuming 34 starts, that projects to 13-10. Good enough for a #4 starter, but if he can just stop tipping his pitches, he could easily win 16+.

I don't think these projections are overly optimistic at all:

Garcia: 18 wins
Buehrle: 16 wins
Contreras: 14 wins
Garland: 12 wins
Total: 60 wins from 4 starters

75 wins from a starting rotation is great. So if they can come up with another starter that can give them 15+ wins, they're golden.

Hangar18
10-13-2004, 11:39 AM
And if my aunt had you know what's.. she'd be my uncle. What's your point Henry...? Ohhh.. I know what it is.. it's another opportunity to slam the Sox brass. :whiner: :whiner:
Actually STEFF, Mike Downey wrote the article, not me. I'll pass your
comments on to him for you though ........

Rocky Soprano
10-13-2004, 11:50 AM
Actually STEFF, Mike Downey wrote the article, not me. I'll pass your
comments on to him for you though ........
Im sure Steff would have no problems voicing her opinion to anyone on her own.

You act like you dont diss the Sox organization everytime you can.

steff
10-13-2004, 12:09 PM
Actually STEFF, Mike Downey wrote the article, not me. I'll pass your
comments on to him for you though ........

Please Henry.. don't pass anything along for me. I express my opinions just fine thank you.
As for Downey, he's paid to make assumptions and ask questions.. and his form is far from the :whiner: most of us read from you day in and out.

steff
10-13-2004, 12:11 PM
You act like you dont diss the Sox organization everytime you can.


True story.. Jim and I saw Henry for the first time in a couple months at Jimbo's the last home game...

No "hi, how ya doing, etc, bla, bla, bla..."

Straight into the "this team sucks.. have you heard anything.. ??"

It's so predictable... it's sad.

jabrch
10-13-2004, 12:25 PM
And if my aunt had you know what's.. she'd be my uncle. What's your point Henry...? Ohhh.. I know what it is.. it's another opportunity to slam the Sox brass. :whiner: :whiner:
My surprised face...:o: Same post every day - at least Hangar is predictable!

jabrch
10-13-2004, 12:30 PM
Do you really want to open up this can of worms? How was Foulke terrible for the Sox? Next, was he better or worse then Koch was for the Sox?


Bob
Do you remember the season he had in 2002? Do you remember him being removed from being the closer, and saying he wanted to be a starter? He was ineffective - and done with us. As far as Koch goes, KW made a move to get a less expensive closer who they thought would be more effective going forward. It didn't work - and hindsight is 20/20. But that doesn't mean that Foulke had ANY POSSIBLE CHANCE of staying with the organzation. Any discussion of that is pure mental masturbation. It was NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

Go ahead with the KW is dumb and JR is cheap stuff - if that's what gets you off. But it doesn't change the fact that this organization was heading in a different direction - and that bitching about it now, for the 549,298,893 time won't change it.

Ol' No. 2
10-13-2004, 12:45 PM
Do you remember the season he had in 2002? Do you remember him being removed from being the closer, and saying he wanted to be a starter? He was ineffective - and done with us. As far as Koch goes, KW made a move to get a less expensive closer who they thought would be more effective going forward. It didn't work - and hindsight is 20/20. But that doesn't mean that Foulke had ANY POSSIBLE CHANCE of staying with the organzation. Any discussion of that is pure mental masturbation. It was NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

Go ahead with the KW is dumb and JR is cheap stuff - if that's what gets you off. But it doesn't change the fact that this organization was heading in a different direction - and that bitching about it now, for the 549,298,893 time won't change it.Foulke(2002): 11 SV, 3 BS, 2-4
Koch(2003): 11 SV, 4 BS, 5-5

And that's not accounting for the number of times he was brought into a tie game and coughed it up. It's true Foulke's ERA was lower, but that was mainly in a setup role. As a closer, he was as bad as Koch ever was. If ever there was an example of a guy who needed a change of scenery, Foulke was it. Personally, I'm glad he got back on track. But to assume he was going to do it with the Sox is, IMO, unfounded.

Wealz
10-13-2004, 12:50 PM
As far as Koch goes, KW made a move to get a less expensive closer who they thought would be more effective going forward. It didn't work - and hindsight is 20/20.
Not only didn't it work. It didn't work fantastically. Trading Foulke in the last year of his contract was a good idea. Trading him for Koch was bizzarre (Foulke is a better pitcher by every measure.) Williams needed to get value for Foulke regardless of position and he absolutely failed in this instance.

Hangar18
10-13-2004, 12:52 PM
True story.. Jim and I saw Henry for the first time in a couple months at Jimbo's the last home game...

No "hi, how ya doing, etc, bla, bla, bla..."

Straight into the "this team sucks.. have you heard anything.. ??"

It's so predictable... it's sad.
SO whose more predictable? Jerry Reinsdorf or Hangar?
Im voting for Uncle Jerry, based on us not having been in a WS since hes
owned the team ............. I guess I should react in different ways?

mdep524
10-13-2004, 01:08 PM
even though it was just a sentence in his article ....
I thought God Darnit! Why arent the Chicago Media Asking this question
also? Why isnt Jerry Reinsdorfs foolish fiscal policies being exposed?
Why are the Chicago Media writing fluffy articles BEGGING for Bruce Kimm
to be fired (which just happened) and for BELTRAN and others to be cubs?
WHY?

Gordon alone wouldve had us in the playoffs. Having Big Bart wouldve
solidified our #5 spot by not having a bunch of rookies stink up the spot
to the tune of 9 losses (and probably more)
I think the real question is: what if the Sox signed Kenny Rogers?

gosox41
10-13-2004, 01:25 PM
Do you remember the season he had in 2002? Do you remember him being removed from being the closer, and saying he wanted to be a starter? He was ineffective - and done with us. As far as Koch goes, KW made a move to get a less expensive closer who they thought would be more effective going forward. It didn't work - and hindsight is 20/20. But that doesn't mean that Foulke had ANY POSSIBLE CHANCE of staying with the organzation. Any discussion of that is pure mental masturbation. It was NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

Go ahead with the KW is dumb and JR is cheap stuff - if that's what gets you off. But it doesn't change the fact that this organization was heading in a different direction - and that bitching about it now, for the 549,298,893 time won't change it.

For the record, I never said JR was cheap. Try not to lump me in that category. When I have more free time I'll so some reseach on Foulke's numbers in 2002 when he was 'ineffective' according to you.

And another thing. Don't give me this garbage about 20/20 hindsight. Look at my posts from then the trade was made in late '02.


Bob

steff
10-13-2004, 03:10 PM
SO whose more predictable? Jerry Reinsdorf or Hangar?
Im voting for Uncle Jerry, based on us not having been in a WS since hes
owned the team ............. I guess I should react in different ways?


Sorry Henry.. but you for sure. All you do is bitch and moan and complain.

Jerko
10-13-2004, 03:33 PM
:hawk

"I Luuuuuuuv when Steff spanks Hangar 18"

Hangar, I like your posts 99% of the time, but it IS funny when Steff gets a little short with you.

maurice
10-13-2004, 06:32 PM
Do you remember the season he had in 2002?
The "down year" in which he posted a 2.9 ERA? Actually, it was more like a "down month." He was horrible in June but completely unhittable after the ASB (0.74 ERA, .191 BAA).

hindsight is 20/20. But that doesn't mean that Foulke had ANY POSSIBLE CHANCE of staying with the organzation.
I agree that Foulke had no chance to stay with a JM-run ballclub, but this is hardly hindsight. Go back and search the posts from around the time of the trade. Plenty of folks were on record as saying that Foulke would be a better closer than Koch in the years to come.

I'm one of the bigger KW-backers on this site, but that was a really bad trade. BK was coming off a good year, but KF was coming off a very good career. During his five full seasons with the Sox, he had 330 appearances, including a very high percentage of situations in which he was eligible to earn a blown save, either as closer or a setup man pitching with the lead. In that time, he blew a grand total of 16 saves -- about three per year. The last four of those years, he posted an ERA begining in 2 -- despite pitching between 77.2 and 105.1 innings in the AL. That's really good.

I also agree that we should let it go and move on, but it's completely uncalled for to pile on one of the best relief pitchers in Sox history.

Flight #24
10-13-2004, 09:55 PM
I agree that Foulke had no chance to stay with a JM-run ballclub, but this is hardly hindsight. Go back and search the posts from around the time of the trade. Plenty of folks were on record as saying that Foulke would be a better closer than Koch in the years to come.

I wouldn't dispute that it was a bad trade from the sense that Koch was not as good a reliever as Foulke, but had Koch simply been an average to above average closer, it would have been OK. What KW could not have predicted, IMO, was Koch falling off the face of the earth ala Jaime Navarro only with a better attitude.

At the time, it was simply a trade in which the Sox gave up a bit more than they gained. Only in hindsight was it ridiculously bad.

kitekrazy
10-14-2004, 12:46 AM
I don't think it would matter much because the would have the opportunity for Don Cooper to mess them up as well. Or the catchers think they can fool hitters by calling for an outside pitch 4 out of 5 times.

batmanZoSo
10-14-2004, 01:26 PM
I like your name, but you no talkie about Foulke any longer.

Manuel mismanaged Foulke his last year with the Sox. Foulke had three or four bad games and was demoted to mop-up and eventually regained a set-up role. However, if you look at his number that year, he had a great WHIP and an excellent K/BB ratio. No sir. Saying he was a total set of astericks is just to be misinformed son.

No, I believe I said he was a female sex organ, but it was censored (sorry mods for letting that slip out). Mentally weak big time, too. He couldn't handle closing in 2002 with us, that's a fact. Blew it in the 2000 playoffs, blew it last year and if I remember correctly, blew it with the A's and allowed Minnesota to advance to the LCS. Foulke is the Buffalo Bills...a choker.

But hey, don't let me telling it like it is about your idol stop you from being condescending and arrogant.

And while we're at it, "son," it's spelled asterisk. Now who's the misinformed one?

Iwritecode
10-14-2004, 01:50 PM
No, I believe I said he was a female sex organ, but it was censored (sorry mods for letting that slip out). Mentally weak big time, too. He couldn't handle closing in 2002 with us, that's a fact. Blew it in the 2000 playoffs, blew it last year and if I remember correctly, blew it with the A's and allowed Minnesota to advance to the LCS. Foulke is the Buffalo Bills...a choker.

But hey, don't let me telling it like it is about your idol stop you from being condescending and arrogant.

And while we're at it, "son," it's spelled asterisk. Now who's the misinformed one?

Actually, he blew the save in game 4 against Boston and then Oakland lost game 5. Those are the only 2 post-season runs he has allowed so far.

In 2002 he only blew 3 saves. Even Rivera blew 2 this year...

balke
10-14-2004, 02:32 PM
So... back to the original question of the thread...



Colon + Gordon + Foulke + better team?

NO.

Colon is a fastball pitcher, pitching in a hot Anaheim. That helps him greatly. He could be a fastball pitcher, pitching in a much cooler Cell, with the wind blowing out many HR's.

So Colon wanted 15 mil, and got it. SO we'd have to cough up about that, if not more. Gordon was asking 4.5, so we go and pay that. Foulke is being stolen right now at 3.5. 23 mil wrapped up in 2 relievers and an ace.

Call me pessimistic, but with that kind of spending, I see our pitching lineup as

Colon
Buerhle
Garland
contreres
grili
To end the season. And I see that as a team right now that is trading Colon regardless in the postseason for a horrible performance. Letting go of Gordon's salary, and trying to rebuild.

I don't think we are any better with those pitchers. I think we spend slightly more for them, for slightly less production overall. I think either way, we lose Maggs, Frank, and any hope of a playoff run. I never liked Colon. He has great fastballs, but not much to offer mentally. I'd rather pay less for a Contreres, and gamble like that on a splitter.


Anyone else see Gordon get beat up in relief for the yanks in game 1?

Flight #24
10-14-2004, 02:37 PM
So... back to the original question of the thread...



Colon + Gordon + Foulke + better team?

NO.

Colon is a fastball pitcher, pitching in a hot Anaheim. That helps him greatly. He could be a fastball pitcher, pitching in a much cooler Cell, with the wind blowing out many HR's.

So Colon wanted 15 mil, and got it. SO we'd have to cough up about that, if not more. Gordon was asking 4.5, so we go and pay that. Foulke is being stolen right now at 3.5. 23 mil wrapped up in 2 relievers and an ace.

Call me pessimistic, but I with that kind of spending, I see our pitching lineup as

Colon
Buerhle
Garland
Grili
Diaz

To end the season. And I see that as a team right now that is trading Colon regardless in the postseason for a horrible performance. Letting go of Gordon's salary, and trying to rebuild.

I don't think we are any better with those pitchers. I think we spend slightly more for them, for slightly less production overall. I think either way, we lose Maggs, Frank, and any hope of a playoff run. I never liked Colon. He has great fastballs, but not much to offer mentally. I'd rather pay less for a Contreres, and gamble like that on a splitter.


Anyone else see Gordon get beat up in relief for the yanks in game 1?
Foulke's salary is $3.5mil, but that doesn't include a $1.5mil signing bonus. his salary is $7mil each for the next 2 years, and then there's a 1.5mil buyout. So realistically, he's costing the Red Sox over 6mil/yr for the next 3 years.

That's pretty hefty, and woud certainly have impacted other tings this team might have been trying to do (unless you believe that the Sox should operate with a BoSox/Yankee-like payroll).

maurice
10-14-2004, 03:12 PM
According to ESPN.com, Mariano Rivera blew four saves in the 2004 regular season, including two blown saves against Boston. Rivera also has blown a save in the playoffs this year. He famously blew Game 7 of the 2001 World Series, but he's still the best reliever in the AL.

OTOH, if he piched for the Sox, people here would say that Rivera "is the Buffalo Bills . . . a choker."

Iwritecode
10-14-2004, 03:34 PM
According to ESPN.com, Mariano Rivera blew four saves in the 2004 regular season, including two blown saves against Boston. Rivera also has blown a save in the playoffs this year. He famously blew Game 7 of the 2001 World Series, but he's still the best reliever in the AL.

OTOH, if he piched for the Sox, people here would say that Rivera "is the Buffalo Bills . . . a choker."

I remember having arguements with Tribe trolls in 2000 and 2001 about who was better Foulke or Rivera.

Some people only remember what they want to remember...

batmanZoSo
10-14-2004, 04:30 PM
According to ESPN.com, Mariano Rivera blew four saves in the 2004 regular season, including two blown saves against Boston. Rivera also has blown a save in the playoffs this year. He famously blew Game 7 of the 2001 World Series, but he's still the best reliever in the AL.

OTOH, if he piched for the Sox, people here would say that Rivera "is the Buffalo Bills . . . a choker."

Yeah, Foulke's really in the same league as Rivera...

good god...

steff
10-14-2004, 04:45 PM
:hawk

"I Luuuuuuuv when Steff spanks Hangar 18"

Hangar, I like your posts 99% of the time, but it IS funny when Steff gets a little short with you.

Henry's not a bad guy.. just annoying when he talks all this bs over and over and over and over and over again... :rolleyes:

maurice
10-14-2004, 07:20 PM
Yeah, Foulke's really in the same league as Rivera.
Keep beating that strawman. It's all you've got.

batmanZoSo
10-14-2004, 09:04 PM
Keep beating that strawman. It's all you've got.

You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!

markfromthechi
10-15-2004, 07:50 AM
good point. but didnt Freddy only get 8 of those wins with US? and Jose
only get 4 of those wins with us? 11 wins is what it looks like to me
Versus 18 Bartolo wins.
Im thinking theres a 10 game swing there ......... Plus Flash Gordon leading in
HOLDS, there goes another 8-9 games. If I do my math correctly,
the SOX win the division by 7-8 games, instead of losing it by 9.

:reinsy
"yes, but Hangar, your not Looking at the Big Picture here.
Look at the MONEY WE SAVED BY CUTTING PAYROLL!!!"9 to be exact, he was 4-7 when he was traded....but whose counting?????

gosox41
10-15-2004, 08:39 AM
Foulke's salary is $3.5mil, but that doesn't include a $1.5mil signing bonus. his salary is $7mil each for the next 2 years, and then there's a 1.5mil buyout. So realistically, he's costing the Red Sox over 6mil/yr for the next 3 years.

That's pretty hefty, and woud certainly have impacted other tings this team might have been trying to do (unless you believe that the Sox should operate with a BoSox/Yankee-like payroll).
Kind of like how Koch was due to make $6 mill in 2004 after KW extended him right after he signed him. It impacted the flexibility this team had.


Bob

Flight #24
10-15-2004, 09:14 AM
Kind of like how Koch was due to make $6 mill in 2004 after KW extended him right after he signed him. It impacted the flexibility this team had.


Bob
Correct, but there's a difference in doing that for 1 year and doing it for 3. Plus, as I've posted, while you could reasonably expect Koch to be worse than Foulke, to expect him to be worse than pretty much anyone, including you and me, was not really projectable.

maurice
10-15-2004, 05:42 PM
http://www.whysanity.net/monos/jack.jpg
You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!

http://espn.go.com/i/mlb/profiles/players/7255.jpg
"Batman-san, we play a game that has nine innings. And that ninth inning needs to be guarded by closers. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Jon Adkins? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Bobby Thigpen and curse Billy Koch. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that Billy Koch's fastball, while tragic, probably saved ballgames. And my pitching, while largely offspeed pitches and junkballs, saves ballgames. You don't want the truth, because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me in that bullpen. You NEED me in that bullpen! We use words like save percentage, ERA, WHIP. We use these words as the backbone to a life spent closing out baseball games. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who cheers for a team that wins ballgames under the blanket of the very protection I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a baseball and toe the rubber. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to."

:keith
"What he said."

batmanZoSo
10-15-2004, 07:35 PM
http://www.whysanity.net/monos/jack.jpg


http://espn.go.com/i/mlb/profiles/players/7255.jpg
"Batman-san, we play a game that has nine innings. And that ninth inning needs to be guarded by closers. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Jon Adkins? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Bobby Thigpen and curse Billy Koch. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that Billy Koch's fastball, while tragic, probably saved ballgames. And my pitching, while largely offspeed pitches and junkballs, saves ballgames. You don't want the truth, because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me in that bullpen. You NEED me in that bullpen! We use words like save percentage, ERA, WHIP. We use these words as the backbone to a life spent closing out baseball games. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who cheers for a team that wins ballgames under the blanket of the very protection I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a baseball and toe the rubber. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to."

:keith
"What he said."
He didn't say that, did he? Come ooooooooon....

Flight #24
10-15-2004, 09:40 PM
http://www.whysanity.net/monos/jack.jpg


http://espn.go.com/i/mlb/profiles/players/7255.jpg
"Batman-san, we play a game that has nine innings. And that ninth inning needs to be guarded by closers. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Jon Adkins? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Bobby Thigpen and curse Billy Koch. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that Billy Koch's fastball, while tragic, probably saved ballgames. And my pitching, while largely offspeed pitches and junkballs, saves ballgames. You don't want the truth, because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me in that bullpen. You NEED me in that bullpen! We use words like save percentage, ERA, WHIP. We use these words as the backbone to a life spent closing out baseball games. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who cheers for a team that wins ballgames under the blanket of the very protection I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a baseball and toe the rubber. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to."


Awesome. I wish there was a smiley with an associated gong sound.

Ol' No. 2
10-16-2004, 02:00 PM
Awesome. I wish there was a smiley with an associated gong sound.Now, THERE'S an idea.

Mohoney
10-16-2004, 03:23 PM
75 wins from a starting rotation is great. So if they can come up with another starter that can give them 15+ wins, they're golden.
Russ Ortiz can win you 15...

He might win you 20, too.

MisterB
10-16-2004, 04:09 PM
Russ Ortiz can win you 15...

He might win you 20, too.Frankly the idea of Ortiz on the Sox scares me.

1) His BA against is good but he walks a lot of batters, so there's plenty of guys on base.

2) He's more of a flyball pitcher than Buehrle, Garland or Garcia, and would probably give up a TON of homers at the Cell (a bad combination with the number of baserunners he allows).

Put those 2 together with him switching from the NL to the AL, and I can easily see his ERA jumping almost a whole run.

Mohoney
10-16-2004, 04:18 PM
Frankly the idea of Ortiz on the Sox scares me.

1) His BA against is good but he walks a lot of batters, so there's plenty of guys on base.

2) He's more of a flyball pitcher than Buehrle, Garland or Garcia, and would probably give up a TON of homers at the Cell (a bad combination with the number of baserunners he allows).

Put those 2 together with him switching from the NL to the AL, and I can easily see his ERA jumping almost a whole run.
Who else, then? I'm open to just about anybody except Matt Clement (the way he throws his slider scares me off, I think he will miss serious time due to injury eventually) or Derek Lowe (he seems like he's developing into a complete headcase).

I just suggested Ortiz because he's actually produced something at the major league level that's worth writing home about. He wins, he's durable, and he has World Series experience. I can see that some people would be worried about the home runs, but it's a staff-wide problem. Hell, even Buehrle gave up over 30 home runs, but all those scoreless innings in between make him valuable. I just see Ortiz doing the same thing.

I might be wrong, but I think that he's well worth the risk.

Ol' No. 2
10-17-2004, 03:01 AM
Frankly the idea of Ortiz on the Sox scares me.

1) His BA against is good but he walks a lot of batters, so there's plenty of guys on base.4.6 BB/9...not so good

2) He's more of a flyball pitcher than Buehrle, Garland or Garcia, and would probably give up a TON of homers at the Cell (a bad combination with the number of baserunners he allows).Ortiz: 1.18 G/F
Buehrle: 1.36 G/F
Garcia: 1.22 G/F
Contreras: 1.20 G/F

batmanZoSo
10-17-2004, 12:46 PM
Who else, then? I'm open to just about anybody except Matt Clement (the way he throws his slider scares me off, I think he will miss serious time due to injury eventually) or Derek Lowe (he seems like he's developing into a complete headcase).

I just suggested Ortiz because he's actually produced something at the major league level that's worth writing home about. He wins, he's durable, and he has World Series experience. I can see that some people would be worried about the home runs, but it's a staff-wide problem. Hell, even Buehrle gave up over 30 home runs, but all those scoreless innings in between make him valuable. I just see Ortiz doing the same thing.

I might be wrong, but I think that he's well worth the risk.

I don't think so at all. I mean Ortiz is a lot better than who he'd be replacing here, but the guy put up a 4.13 era (higher than Buehrle's) in an enormous pitcher's park while facing pitchers two or three times a game. He makes pretty big money too, it's a bad idea. Either we get a great pitcher who we know will be great, or we get someone who'll give you just a winning record and maybe a 4.20 era, but at a much cheaper price. Basically, either a number one or a good number 3-4. Personally, getting a back end guy would be a waste of time, but I think those two options are the only wise ones we could possibly make with the starting staff.

Foulke29
10-18-2004, 11:24 AM
So 16 possible win versus 18. BFD Let's see how many games Fatolo would've won with the second half of 2004 White Sox's offense.
Now go :whiner: about how Foulke and Gordon would've prevented those blown saves.
That's a bit harsh, isn't it? I would call him Fartolo Colon. Heh.

:bandance: :bandance:

Mohoney
10-18-2004, 02:48 PM
I mean Ortiz is a lot better than who he'd be replacing here
That's the only point I'm trying to make. He's light-years better than what we currently have in Contreras and Garland, and pushing those two to the back end of the rotation makes this whole pitching staff better..

Yes, the guy gives up walks. Yes, he doesn't get as many ground ball outs as I would like. But the fact is that the guy is ALWAYS on the plus side of .500 with anywhere from 15+ wins to a career high of 21 wins.

You don't have to have sparkling statistics, you just have to be better than the other team's guy that day. More often than not, Russ Ortiz fits into this category. He might have a more mediocre ERA if he pitched in our park, but I think that the wins and innings will still be there.

I'm open to just about anybody except a Matt Clement or a Derek Lowe. If Kenny thinks that Odalis Perez is a better fit as a #2 or #3 type pitcher, then fine. If we sign Carl Pavano, fine. Just don't forcefeed a back-end guy down my throat. Get a real starting pitcher and fix the bullpen. Until these two tasks are completed, everything else goes on the back burner.

Flight #24
10-18-2004, 02:53 PM
That's the only point I'm trying to make. He's light-years better than what we currently have in Contreras and Garland, and pushing those two to the back end of the rotation makes this whole pitching staff better..

Yes, the guy gives up walks. Yes, he doesn't get as many ground ball outs as I would like. But the fact is that the guy is ALWAYS on the plus side of .500 with anywhere from 15+ wins to a career high of 21 wins.

You don't have to have sparkling statistics, you just have to be better than the other team's guy that day. More often than not, Russ Ortiz fits into this category. He might have a more mediocre ERA if he pitched in our park, but I think that the wins and innings will still be there.

I'm open to just about anybody except a Matt Clement or a Derek Lowe. If Kenny thinks that Odalis Perez is a better fit as a #2 or #3 type pitcher, then fine. If we sign Carl Pavano, fine. Just don't forcefeed a back-end guy down my throat. Get a real starting pitcher and fix the bullpen. Until these two tasks are completed, everything else goes on the back burner.
First off, I'm not sure he's light-years better than the 2 guys we have. Factoring in performance at USCF, I wouldnt' be surprised to see am ERA in the high 4s to low 5s. That's not really an improvement over Garland/Contreras.

Secondly, Garland is at least cheap, and I think Contreras will be cheaper than Ortiz as well. Adding another similar pitcher at a sizeable salary is not recommended.

Mohoney
10-18-2004, 07:14 PM
First off, I'm not sure he's light-years better than the 2 guys we have.
I am. If you had a choice between starting Russ Ortiz or Jon Garland in Game 3 of an ALCS, you would actually hesitate as to who you would pick?

I'll go with the pitcher that is OVER .500 instead of the clown that is UNDER .500.

Flight #24
10-18-2004, 09:09 PM
I am. If you had a choice between starting Russ Ortiz or Jon Garland in Game 3 of an ALCS, you would actually hesitate as to who you would pick?

I'll go with the pitcher that is OVER .500 instead of the clown that is UNDER .500.
I guess I'm not as swayed by things like W-L that a pitcher largely has little control over. I'll take stats that I correlate more with a pitchers performance like WHIP and to a lesser extent, ERA. Then factor in K/BB, K/9, GB/FB.

And the point was not purely Garland v. Ortiz, it was that getting slightly better performance, but at a cost of $6-8mil is not IMO a great use of resources.

Ortiz: 4.13ERA / 1.51 WHIP / 1.28K/BB / 6.29K/9 / 1.10GB/FB
Garland: 4.89ERA / 1.38WHIP / 1.49K/BB / 4.69K/9 / 1.27GB/FB

Not that different, especially when you factor in Ortiz's ERA likely rising with a move to the AL and to the USCF launching pad. Now you're paying him 6-8mil on top of that? No thanks.

batmanZoSo
10-18-2004, 09:23 PM
That's the only point I'm trying to make. He's light-years better than what we currently have in Contreras and Garland, and pushing those two to the back end of the rotation makes this whole pitching staff better..

Yes, the guy gives up walks. Yes, he doesn't get as many ground ball outs as I would like. But the fact is that the guy is ALWAYS on the plus side of .500 with anywhere from 15+ wins to a career high of 21 wins.

You don't have to have sparkling statistics, you just have to be better than the other team's guy that day. More often than not, Russ Ortiz fits into this category. He might have a more mediocre ERA if he pitched in our park, but I think that the wins and innings will still be there.

I'm open to just about anybody except a Matt Clement or a Derek Lowe. If Kenny thinks that Odalis Perez is a better fit as a #2 or #3 type pitcher, then fine. If we sign Carl Pavano, fine. Just don't forcefeed a back-end guy down my throat. Get a real starting pitcher and fix the bullpen. Until these two tasks are completed, everything else goes on the back burner.


But you're overlooking that A) he's not that good and I believe would get bombed in the much tougher AL and in the best hitter's park (you have to think so just on numbers), and B) he makes a lot of money. He is not a good option. We definitely need someone, but either someone cheap and good or outstanding and, naturally, expensive.

Mohoney
10-18-2004, 10:31 PM
But you're overlooking that A) he's not that good and I believe would get bombed in the much tougher AL and in the best hitter's park (you have to think so just on numbers), and B) he makes a lot of money. He is not a good option. We definitely need someone, but either someone cheap and good or outstanding and, naturally, expensive.
I was just thinking that we won't find anybody better for a cheaper price, given the premium dollars that go to starting pitchers. If I could get Odalis Perez for about $4 million per year, and save a significant amount of money, then by all means, go ahead. If we could somehow snab Carl Pavano at the $7 or $8 million per season level, be my guest.

I'm just thinking that we have to get a starter in, at the very least, the $7 million per season range to bolster our staff. The market rate for workhorse pitchers is somewhere in this price range, and we just have to forget the Jaime Navarro fiasco and finally move on as an organization. Sign a legitimate starting pitcher with a proven track record.

All I'm saying is that if Jon Garland is anything other than our #5 starter next year, we're done anyway. Personally, I wouldn't shed tear one if they traded the turd.

Flight #24
10-18-2004, 10:36 PM
All I'm saying is that if Jon Garland is anything other than our #5 starter next year, we're done anyway. Personally, I wouldn't shed tear one if they traded the turd.
And yet you'll celebrate when they sign a guy who's statistically not a significant improvement and pay him $7mil/yr????:?:

Lip Man 1
10-18-2004, 10:45 PM
Flight:

I'm not a stat geek so I have no idea what stats are relevent but before you say something about being a significant statistical improvement isn't it proper to agree on what stats you are measuring pitchers by? And that both sides agree on the same things?

Lip

batmanZoSo
10-18-2004, 10:45 PM
I was just thinking that we won't find anybody better for a cheaper price, given the premium dollars that go to starting pitchers. If I could get Odalis Perez for about $4 million per year, and save a significant amount of money, then by all means, go ahead. If we could somehow snab Carl Pavano at the $7 or $8 million per season level, be my guest.

I'm just thinking that we have to get a starter in, at the very least, the $7 million per season range to bolster our staff. The market rate for workhorse pitchers is somewhere in this price range, and we just have to forget the Jaime Navarro fiasco and finally move on as an organization. Sign a legitimate starting pitcher with a proven track record.

All I'm saying is that if Jon Garland is anything other than our #5 starter next year, we're done anyway. Personally, I wouldn't shed tear one if they traded the turd.

I would take Ortiz without question if that was all we could get. Because we have to get someone. But we could spend the money a lot wiser in my opinion. I also wouldn't cry if Garland was gone, but we waited so long with him, I'd hate to see him become good somewhere else. And he's a damn good 5th starter at his price if we do get that other pitcher we're looking for.

Flight #24
10-18-2004, 10:56 PM
Flight:

I'm not a stat geek so I have no idea what stats are relevent but before you say something about being a significant statistical improvement isn't it proper to agree on what stats you are measuring pitchers by? And that both sides agree on the same things?

Lip
When almost all the stats are fairly similar, the outlier being W/L - which is widely accepted as one of the least accurate methods of evaluating a pitcher, I think it's fair to say that they're not all that different.

If you have a stat that you think is relevant that speaks to the ability of the pitcher and shows a difference, I'm all for hearing it.

The key point, again, is that spending $7mil on a Russ Ortiz is not, IMO a good use of money. Especially if you're that unhappy with Garland's performance (as mohoney is).

Lip Man 1
10-18-2004, 11:11 PM
I always gone by the tried and true stats for a pitcher, W-L (which a pitcher DOES have control over if he's good enough, ERA (ditto because unearned runs are not charged to him), and walks to strikeouts also innings pitched.

If that was good enough for Gibson, Seaver, Palmer, Pierce etc...it's good enough today.

Lip

Flight #24
10-18-2004, 11:25 PM
I always gone by the tried and true stats for a pitcher, W-L (which a pitcher DOES have control over if he's good enough, ERA (ditto because unearned runs are not charged to him), and walks to strikeouts also innings pitched.

If that was good enough for Gibson, Seaver, Palmer, Pierce etc...it's good enough today.

Lip
Ortiz: 14-9, 4.13ERA, 204.2IP, 143K/112BB
Garland B: 12-11, 4.89ERA, 217IP, 113K/76BB

So the differential in wins is 2. Given the difference between a 96-win Braves team and an 83-win Sox team, I'd say that's within the pitcher-controllable aspect of wins to be considered "similar". That leaves the ERA discrepancy, which will shrink some in a move by Ortiz to the AL and specifically to USCF.

Again - "similar". Ortiz may be better, but not significantly in any metric but price.

gosox41
10-19-2004, 09:26 AM
I always gone by the tried and true stats for a pitcher, W-L (which a pitcher DOES have control over if he's good enough, ERA (ditto because unearned runs are not charged to him), and walks to strikeouts also innings pitched.

If that was good enough for Gibson, Seaver, Palmer, Pierce etc...it's good enough today.

Lip
It is important, but wins and losses aren't as important at measuring the effectiveness of the pitcher. Garcia had a 4-7 record when he came here from Seattle. Doesn't tell you much until you see the Mariners were scoring like 2 runs a game for him.

Bartolo won 18 games with a 5+ ERA and a high WHIP. If Garcia was in Bartolo's spot in Anaheim I'd bet he'd have over 20 wins.

But there are other statistics that need to be looked at. BB, K's, H, IP are all the big measuring sticks. But it is nice to know if a pitcher is a fly ball pitcher in a park with deep alleys. It would be ignorant to think that a fly ball pitcher can go to a launching pad like the 2003 Cell and put up similar numbers.


Bob